simondeeley12
Joined Aug 2010
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
simondeeley12's rating
I don't usually write reviews, but this film is so awful I felt obliged to comment on it.
Firstly, the lighting is really poor. In some of the night scenes it's hard to tell what's going on, and even the studio set (where nearly the whole film takes place) is poorly lit.
There's also no proper sense of movement between scenes. They cut abruptly from one to the next without proper continuity because the film was so cheaply made.
And to judge from the limited camerawork and background music I would've guessed that this was made in the 1930's rather than 1948.
This is one of the worst films I've seen in a long while.
Firstly, the lighting is really poor. In some of the night scenes it's hard to tell what's going on, and even the studio set (where nearly the whole film takes place) is poorly lit.
There's also no proper sense of movement between scenes. They cut abruptly from one to the next without proper continuity because the film was so cheaply made.
And to judge from the limited camerawork and background music I would've guessed that this was made in the 1930's rather than 1948.
This is one of the worst films I've seen in a long while.
I've always loved this film - not least because most of the filming locations are familiar to me.
I'm not usually a fan of spy films, but this one works for me partly because the casting is so excellent.
There is a great chemistry between Bernard Lee and Margaret Tyzack, and if you watch some of their reactions closely they appear spontaneous rather than rehearsed.
The only reservation I have about the film is, while it's great entertainment, its only very loosely based on the facts.
And that is why I wrote this article - not just to praise this film but rather to set the record straight for other reviewers who seem to labor under the illusion that this film is factual.
Viewers (and reviewers) should not take it as the Gospel truth in terms of historical accuracy - it's far from it. But the scriptwriter has turned the basic story into enjoyable cinema!
And with all due respect to those who have sadly departed this world, Harry Houghton and Elizabeth Gee became spies of their own volition rather than through blackmail and coercion as this film would have us believe. In fact, it portrays them more sympathetically than perhaps they really deserve.
I'm not usually a fan of spy films, but this one works for me partly because the casting is so excellent.
There is a great chemistry between Bernard Lee and Margaret Tyzack, and if you watch some of their reactions closely they appear spontaneous rather than rehearsed.
The only reservation I have about the film is, while it's great entertainment, its only very loosely based on the facts.
And that is why I wrote this article - not just to praise this film but rather to set the record straight for other reviewers who seem to labor under the illusion that this film is factual.
Viewers (and reviewers) should not take it as the Gospel truth in terms of historical accuracy - it's far from it. But the scriptwriter has turned the basic story into enjoyable cinema!
And with all due respect to those who have sadly departed this world, Harry Houghton and Elizabeth Gee became spies of their own volition rather than through blackmail and coercion as this film would have us believe. In fact, it portrays them more sympathetically than perhaps they really deserve.
I didn't really know how many stars to give this - I gave it two because there probably are even worse things to watch than this. It's totally unfunny and unentertaining. As a comment on the then prevailing morals it might have some value, but it's so smutty and predictable that it's hard to take seriously. The Carry On films did this sort of thing so much better because the sexual innuendo was implied and often entertaining (with the exception of the last two Carry On films). In this film everything is so explicit, that together with an awful script, its just embarrassing for anybody (other than those seeking visual titillation) to watch.